These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

305 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29971107)

  • 41. Accuracy of Implant Position Transfer and Surface Detail Reproduction with Different Impression Materials and Techniques.
    Alikhasi M; Siadat H; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    J Dent (Tehran); 2015 Oct; 12(10):774-83. PubMed ID: 27252761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis.
    Basaki K; Alkumru H; De Souza G; Finer Y
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(4):792–799. PubMed ID: 28618432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants.
    Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S; Ozan O; Ozcelik TB; Yagiz A
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1551-9. PubMed ID: 25446736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influence of the implant scan body modifications on trueness of digital impressions.
    Uzel SM; Guncu MB; Aktas G; Arikan H; Reiss N; Turkyilmaz I
    J Dent Sci; 2023 Oct; 18(4):1771-1777. PubMed ID: 37799878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Accuracy of multi-implant impressions using 3D-printing custom trays and splinting versus conventional techniques for complete arches.
    Liu Y; Di P; Zhao Y; Hao Q; Tian J; Cui H
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(4):1007–1014. PubMed ID: 31107937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation.
    Chia VA; Esguerra RJ; Teoh KH; Teo JW; Wong KM; Tan KB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(2):313–321. PubMed ID: 28231346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.
    Drancourt N; Auduc C; Mouget A; Mouminoux J; Auroy P; Veyrune JL; El Osta N; Nicolas E
    J Pers Med; 2023 May; 13(5):. PubMed ID: 37241002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants.
    Tsagkalidis G; Tortopidis D; Mpikos P; Kaisarlis G; Koidis P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 26213265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation.
    Abduo J; Palamara JEA
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Jul; 7(1):75. PubMed ID: 34327601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation.
    Farronato D; Pasini PM; Campana V; Lops D; Azzi L; Manfredini M
    Odontology; 2021 Oct; 109(4):884-894. PubMed ID: 34075492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants.
    Gintaute A; Papatriantafyllou N; Aljehani M; Att W
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2018; 13(4):550-565. PubMed ID: 30302442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
    Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Do Type and Shape of Scan Bodies Affect Accuracy and Time of Digital Implant Impressions?
    Moslemion M; Payaminia L; Jalali H; Alikhasi M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Feb; 28(1):18-27. PubMed ID: 32036633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials.
    De La Cruz JE; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Moss ME; Graser GN; Tallents RH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 12426505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Influence of the Angulation and Insertion Depth of Implants on the 3D Trueness of Conventional and Digital Impressions.
    Önöral Ö; Kurtulmus-Yılmaz S; Keskin A; Ozan O
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2022; 37(6):1186-1194. PubMed ID: 36450024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants.
    Conrad HJ; Pesun IJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):349-56. PubMed ID: 17618917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.